Ambedkar Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 1535 (29 November 1996)
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeals by special arise against the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore bench, made on 10.2.1994 and
1.3.1995 in OA No.753/93 and RA No.22/94 respectively.
admitted position is that the appellant and the respondents are to be selected
by Railway Recruitment Board and were placed in a panel prepared on June 28,
1985 ad Assistant Station Masters. The appellant was sent for training on December 23, 1985 and had completed the same on June 22, 1986. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 were
sent on July 20, 1986 and they completed the training on January 19, 1987. In preparation of the inter-se
seniority, the appellant claimed seniority over the respondents on the ground
that he had completed his training earlier to them and as per Rule 303 (1)(a)
of the Railway Establishment Code, the seniority has to be reckoned from the
date of completion of the training and joining the post. Since the appellant
was sent for training of December
23, 1985 to the
respondents. The Tribunal in the order under appeal, has said that the
respondents, though were selected and seniors in the order of ranking, i.e.
merits, since the enquiry into the antecedents was pending, they could not be
sent for training earlier to the appellant. Therefor, the appellant cannot
scale a march over them in the order of seniority.
counsel for the appellant contended that as per the Rule then in vogue, there
was no option left to the authorities to determine the inter se seniority in
the light of Rule 303(1)(a) of the code, but on May 31, 1993, the Rule came to
be amended amplifying what latent with potential mischief for the arbitrary
exercise of power in picking up and sending the candidates batch-wise for
training and giving them accelerated seniority over the candidates who were put
blow in the order of select list by the Railway Recruitment Board or any of the
competent authority that rule cannot be applied to the case of the appellant
and the respondents as the rule in vogue in 1985 alone has to be considered. though
prima facial we found force in the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant, but on deeper consideration of the legality and justice, we find
that there is no force in the contention. It is not in dispute that the
respondent Nos.6 and 7 were selected in the same batch and rank; in the order
of merit they were seniors to the appellant. Under there circumstances, since
they had not been sent for training, necessarily their ranking given in the
list of candidates selected in the order of merit by the recruitment board
cannot be given a go-by and they cannot be given accelerated seniority to the
appellant and the like by picking and choosing the persons as per the whim of
the authorities empowered to send them for training. It is settled legal
position that the order of merit and ranking given by the Recruitment Board
should be maintained when more than one persons are selected, the same inter se
seniority should be maintained for future promotions unless Rules prescribe
passing of departmental test as a condition for confirmation but was not passed
as on the date of determining of inter se seniority. Under these circumstances,
the Tribunal was justified and right in not directing the respondent give
seniority to the appellant over the respondents. Therefore, the order of the
Tribunal does not warrant interference.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.